one per week should do it.

colechristensen 7 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I'd settle for once per second. There's a lot of very fast trading nonsense which I've only heard defended with the "liquidity" bogeyman.

A sealed-bid uniform-price batch auction seems like the right action.

	▲	fc417fc802 6 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		Even once per second seems like overkill. That interval would still largely just facilitate the weaponization of exceedingly low information latency. 30 seconds seems reasonable, 1 minute better, and 5 minutes still better. In all honesty even going as long as 30 minutes should still facilitate all legitimate purposes.
	▲	jjmarr 6 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		It's your God-given right as an American to get millisecond level price discovery. Trading delays sounds like Communist bureaucracy.

▲

wholinator2 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Honestly what would happen if the stock market didn't exist. It seems like these days the price of stock is so disconnected from lived reality that genuinely confused if it would be all that catastrophic

▲

nightski 7 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Well we’d go back to an era where private capital owns the world. The public would not be able to participate or benefit from the ownership of companies and share in the prosperity.

▲

idiotsecant 7 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Yes, hard to imagine this crazy timeline where private capital rules the world. Totally inconceivable.

▲

vasco 6 hours ago | parent [-]

"It's not good so let's make it worse"

	▲	cluckindan 4 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Cryptocurrencies everywhere.

▲

AngryData 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I mean the average person already barely has any participation at all, and certainly doesn't benefit from it when their money gets dumped down the toilet because of some widespread financial scams and grifts that repeatedly happen over and over again.

▲

refurb 3 hours ago | parent [-]

62% of adult Americans own stock.

	▲	AngryData 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		And how many of those people are actively making decisions about what companies they are investing in instead of blindly putting money into a black box 401k account because they are financially punished for not doing so?

▲

bmitc 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Private capital doesn't own the U.S.?

	▲	michaelsshaw 4 hours ago \| parent [-]
		BREAKING: Countries other than "U.S." found to be members of so-called "world" Although I'm not sure what he's on either. Capitalists definitely own and exploit pretty much the entire world, with few exceptions.

▲

7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

[deleted]

▲

stogot 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I hypothesize all dividends, no share value. How would that world look

▲

fsckboy 7 hours ago | parent [-]

that makes no sense. companies need capital, that's why there is a stock market. dividends are paid from past earnings, never capital (earnings are only a %age of the value of the capital) and not from higher expectations of the future.

	▲	cluckindan 4 hours ago \| parent [-]
		In a perfect world… reality is different, however. Plenty of companies take on debt to pay dividends, e.g. just before going public.

▲

bluecalm 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

It's not disconnected from reality. You just don't understand it.

If the stock market didn't exist you would have less opportunities to invest in well priced companies and people would be manipulated in investing in opaque, often ridden with accounting shenanigans things like private equity.

The more companies are public and subject to price discovery done by sophisticated players the better it is for uninformed players like normal investors but also less sophisticated informed players like pension funds.

▲

bmitc 5 hours ago | parent [-]

> people would be manipulated in investing in opaque, often ridden with accounting shenanigans things

This happens even with the stock market. See every financial crisis.

	▲	bluecalm 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Like which one? 2008 crisis was caused by reckless lending by banks as a result of silly regulation (government guaranteeing loans), implicit promise of bailouts and you could argue corruption. What does it have to do with the stock market? It's a nice dismissing soundbite but you're just missing the broader point and real issues coming with people's money being invested in non public entities. Besides, just because some problems also happen with solution A doesn't mean they wouldn't be worse with solution B. You are not really making a point just dismissing the idea of a public market without understanding the value of it.